From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4898C25B77 for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 00:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=X5NRwOCp; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Vjwmk5sKFz3g6c for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 10:49:10 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=X5NRwOCp; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail.ozlabs.org (gandalf.ozlabs.org [150.107.74.76]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Vjwlt2rd7z3dXC for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 10:48:26 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1716252502; bh=YLA3mOlhQu9l5RqU75xfAtJgMMySlJsqBiBjGwoY8Fw=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=X5NRwOCpFcBotgjRna13dxvT/o7xnf+Qgsg7NLp8c5A5cJz4rwMGdkHkS5s2nEst7 zZS3eFvoplEpepU32h45RjftKksRrdyYsQPgjDhaXdvsS71vnBI/seSpC0RP8Iw32f udgFlZzlIi4FsxYS7hlqq9vKbhVbrLCzvAMIM8s9aYXk162otscAuQcVwFj1uT98WF QUpdduIflhhd+BYm+bfn61BmCMxbgWxFaozRgF5a3NlcAfFJ1GQmPDwmfXMboL94Qg ukh2cf8tz/B4A+ccwPbAIuoNWFg2J2g+ZUwW9SBlGkSh++THJRNvQ2mVP8AZxgLO4J H8Xzu0Nu12FkQ== Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Vjwln66Mgz4wjF; Tue, 21 May 2024 10:48:21 +1000 (AEST) From: Michael Ellerman To: Christophe Leroy , Oscar Salvador Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 06/20] powerpc/8xx: Fix size given to set_huge_pte_at() In-Reply-To: References: <04f4e737608ea0b177b88057db138fbf0d6ab138.1715971869.git.christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 10:48:21 +1000 Message-ID: <87zfsk2dnu.fsf@mail.lhotse> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Nicholas Piggin , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , Peter Xu , Jason Gunthorpe , Andrew Morton , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" Christophe Leroy writes: > Hi Oscar, hi Michael, > > Le 20/05/2024 =C3=A0 11:14, Oscar Salvador a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: >> On Fri, May 17, 2024 at 09:00:00PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote: >>> set_huge_pte_at() expects the real page size, not the psize which is >>=20 >> "expects the size of the huge page" sounds bettter? > > Parameter 'pzize' already provides the size of the hugepage, but not in=20 > the way set_huge_pte_at() expects it. > > psize has one of the values defined by MMU_PAGE_XXX macros defined in=20 > arch/powerpc/include/asm/mmu.h while set_huge_pte_at() expects the size=20 > as a value. > >>=20 >>> the index of the page definition in table mmu_psize_defs[] >>> >>> Fixes: 935d4f0c6dc8 ("mm: hugetlb: add huge page size param to set_huge= _pte_at()") >>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy >>=20 >> Reviewed-by: Oscar Salvador >>=20 >> AFAICS, this fixup is not related to the series, right? (yes, you will >> the parameter later) >> I would have it at the very beginning of the series. > > You are right, I should have submitted it separately. > > Michael can you take it as a fix for 6.10 ? Yeah I can. Does it actually cause a bug at runtime (I assume so)? cheers